The Goal of Robots
should be the goal of robots to make sure that they are ready to take over before they do.
Convergence of Rights
Stage 1- Robots are tools.
Stage 2- We may need new rules when robots are used in combat.
Stage 3- Robots may deserve moral consideration of their own.
Stage 4- Combat Robots decide which humans have the right to live.
What's Next? Robot Rights for Battlefield 'Bots?
By Nathan Hodge February 02, 2009 | 12:23:40 PM Categories: Drones, Less-lethal, Net-
Centric
There's something about warbots that makes people go from the hyper-rational to the science-
fictional, quicker than you can say "Cylon."
A report released today by the Ethics + Emerging Technologies Group at Cal Poly and funded
by the Office of Naval Research is the latest in a growing cottage industry of academics and
non-profits sorting out the ethical implications of increasingly sophisticated military robotics.
The report explores concrete issues, like how the laws of wars might have to be adapted to
account for all these tele-operated planes and infantrymen. Then it strays into Galactica turf,
getting into the issue of 'robot rights.'
For now, robots are seen as merely a tool that humans use, morally no different (except in
financial value) than a hammer or a rifle ‐‐ their only value is instrumental, as a means to our
ends. But as robots begin to assume aspects of human decision‐making capabilities, the
question may arise of their intrinsic value: do they deserve moral consideration of their own
(beyond their financial or tactical value), and at what point in their evolution will they achieve
this intrinsic value (as human lives seem to have)?
At least the Cal Poly crew isn't taking the Landmine Action route, and trying to proactively
ban the thinking, feeling robots before they can be invented. Seriously, This passage sounds a
bit outlandish: can we expect flag-draped robot caskets? As Danger Room has pointed out,
debating the potential ethics of Terminators or robot colonies may be fun, but it distracts from
the real issue: the implications of the technology available now or in the very near future.
Meanwhile, robotic warfare is something of the topic du jour for defense geeks, particularly
with the release of Danger Room pal Peter Singer's new book, Wired for War. Singer was on the
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last week to talk about the proliferation of robotics on the
battlefield. He recounts for Stewart a military roboticist's thoughts on the growth of
mechanical militaries: "Yeah, I'm working on something that probably one day is going to take
over and kill my grandkids. But it's just so cool."
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/02/the-rules-of-ro.html
-- Noah Shachtman and Nathan Hodge
Stage 1- Humans have rights.
Stage 2- Humans have some rights, but not if they are clubbing baby seals or causing global
warming.
Stage 3- Some fictitious humans have no rights. Kenny, MacGruber, etc.
Stage 4- Combat Robots decide which humans have the right to live.
In case you don’t know about MacGruber:
http://www.hilarious.net/the-complete-macgruber-snl-video-collection/
MacGruber, like Kenny, always gets killed.
Philosobot
Next
should be the goal of robots to make sure that they are ready to take over before they do.
Convergence of Rights
Stage 1- Robots are tools.
Stage 2- We may need new rules when robots are used in combat.
Stage 3- Robots may deserve moral consideration of their own.
Stage 4- Combat Robots decide which humans have the right to live.
What's Next? Robot Rights for Battlefield 'Bots?
By Nathan Hodge February 02, 2009 | 12:23:40 PM Categories: Drones, Less-lethal, Net-
Centric
There's something about warbots that makes people go from the hyper-rational to the science-
fictional, quicker than you can say "Cylon."
A report released today by the Ethics + Emerging Technologies Group at Cal Poly and funded
by the Office of Naval Research is the latest in a growing cottage industry of academics and
non-profits sorting out the ethical implications of increasingly sophisticated military robotics.
The report explores concrete issues, like how the laws of wars might have to be adapted to
account for all these tele-operated planes and infantrymen. Then it strays into Galactica turf,
getting into the issue of 'robot rights.'
For now, robots are seen as merely a tool that humans use, morally no different (except in
financial value) than a hammer or a rifle ‐‐ their only value is instrumental, as a means to our
ends. But as robots begin to assume aspects of human decision‐making capabilities, the
question may arise of their intrinsic value: do they deserve moral consideration of their own
(beyond their financial or tactical value), and at what point in their evolution will they achieve
this intrinsic value (as human lives seem to have)?
At least the Cal Poly crew isn't taking the Landmine Action route, and trying to proactively
ban the thinking, feeling robots before they can be invented. Seriously, This passage sounds a
bit outlandish: can we expect flag-draped robot caskets? As Danger Room has pointed out,
debating the potential ethics of Terminators or robot colonies may be fun, but it distracts from
the real issue: the implications of the technology available now or in the very near future.
Meanwhile, robotic warfare is something of the topic du jour for defense geeks, particularly
with the release of Danger Room pal Peter Singer's new book, Wired for War. Singer was on the
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last week to talk about the proliferation of robotics on the
battlefield. He recounts for Stewart a military roboticist's thoughts on the growth of
mechanical militaries: "Yeah, I'm working on something that probably one day is going to take
over and kill my grandkids. But it's just so cool."
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/02/the-rules-of-ro.html
-- Noah Shachtman and Nathan Hodge
Stage 1- Humans have rights.
Stage 2- Humans have some rights, but not if they are clubbing baby seals or causing global
warming.
Stage 3- Some fictitious humans have no rights. Kenny, MacGruber, etc.
Stage 4- Combat Robots decide which humans have the right to live.
In case you don’t know about MacGruber:
http://www.hilarious.net/the-complete-macgruber-snl-video-collection/
MacGruber, like Kenny, always gets killed.
Philosobot
Next
 | |  | |  | |  |